He's not listening to anything you say. He's only here to repeat what he was taught at 8chan. This is obvious once he started repeating many months old false claims about Anita. Typhoon (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

True, but I'd been waiting to use the 'filthy casual' line all the way through lunch. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I took out the list of books since you criticized it. You say Eysenck is irrelevant to this site's mission. But there's an article about Freud on this site, there an article about the age of sexual consent. Freud seems no more relevant to that mission to me. Eysenck wrote in similar topic areas to Freud. And the age of consent seems completely unrelated to this site's mission.--PBustion87 (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Freud is quite often cited by woo-peddlers to support whatever it is they are flogging. Freud is well-known in popular culture, and a nice worked example of questionable science later discredited. Despite Eysenck's racism, he's just not influential enough outside of the sphere of psychology. Even if a woomonger started (ab)using his ideas, that would still be better mentioned in an article for that woomonger. As a general point, 'these other articles are also largely off-mission' isn't much of an argument. There's a lot of cruft that nobody has been bothered to clear away yet. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a handy reminder, with link to the blocklist, at the top of one of the block/unblock dialog boxes, but I forget exactly where. Oh, and you've been blocked for gambling. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I get it. Communication is essential, and we're not getting enough of it. Doing things like blocking users without explanation is the kinda thing that causes communities to fall apart and into obsequious groups of people fawning for the approval of overpowered moderators to stay in the in-group. It's pretty clearly a very important component of why, e.g. rationalwiki gives most people sysops. But people were going too far there and making unfounded accusations to try and sort things into a black and white world that wasn't accurate.

I'm not trying to push for a false middle. I think the concerns here are real, and Nutty quite strongly hinted that he personally was being sued, which explains his anger if nothing else. ikanreedYou probably didn't deserve that 15:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's not so much trying to oversimplify the situation or deny potential problems as that his behaviour was sufficiently over-the-top and indiscriminate that any explanation ends up seeming far-fetched. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As someone working in genetics, I can verify that the BoN is full of shit[edit]

Great. Could you explain what the problem is, rather than reverting with no explanation. 211.171.54.31 (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello? You're someone working in genetics and I'm not, so you are the authority here. Why not put me in my place with my "race was never based on skin color" bullshit. 211.171.54.31 (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

As a brief summary, almost all differences that there are are unrelated to anything important in the genome. In genomics, we need to be aware of these inconsequential differences so we can pick out meaningful variants related to disease, but that's it. The handful of meaningful variants that do segregate with ethnicity have simple phenotypes and strong selective pressures (sickle-cell anaemia has a higher prevalence in populations prone to malaria, for example, because although the anaemia is a problem the same mutation confers some resistance to malaria). Even in these cases, the difference between populations is only at the level of allele frequency. An intronic variant in the European population might occur with a frequency of 1%, yet occur in an African population with frequency 50%. There's no 'hard' difference between the two, and in fact 25% of Africans in that population would have an identical genotype for that allele with the European population. So, while what differences there are statistically interesting, they mean nothing. There are exactly two 'hard' differences between European and African allele frequencies, as given by a near-100% allele frequency difference, and they turn out to be the mutations that correlate with pale skin colour (despite only causing ~20% of the difference) and don't do a great deal else. The rest of the 3 billion alleles? No other differences that large. The allele frequency differences between different populations become even less meaningful when you discover that you can get greater resolution of ancestry with high-enough quality data. So the much-vaunted differences that talking heads like to pretend exist between Africans and Europeans are on the same level as the differences between north Yorkshiremen and south Yorkshiremen. Which again, makes the whole concept of 'race' look rather absurd.

That's probably a fuller explanation than a racist fuckwit deserves, but maybe a passer-by will find it informative.

Also, good job there crowing about my lack of response while I was typing one up. Clearly, you have a dizzying intellect. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your concept of a "hard" difference in any allele is a complete strawman especially considering IQ is hugely polygenic. Further you have presented absolutely no evidence such "hard" differences don't exist anyway. 211.171.54.31 (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Further, the question you fail to address with this irrelevant and nonsensical babble is whether the race concept is based on "skin color". 211.171.54.31 (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(EC) There are only two entries in the publicly-available 1000 Genomes data set with a frequency differential near 100%. [| Go looking if you're so convinced there are others. IQ is pretty much a garbage metric, so I have no idea why you're trying to invoke that. My point is this - even if there was some mystical combination of alleles that was 'better', in whatever way you want to define it, the difference in the occurrence of that magic combination between populations would not be large. The specific genotype would be shared across populations, and the absence would be shared across populations. And there is no good reason to think that the allele frequencies underlying it would segregate with ethnic groups. This we know, with certainty, from the allele frequency work that has been done. It's statistics.

It's abundantly clear that you're just incapable of absorbing the facts, either due to innumeracy or ideological blindness.

Good work, ikanreed, BTW, I was going to do it myself after this reply. Don't want my user page getting shitted up by a racist with no grasp of science. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(For anyone curious about the paper the racist fuckbag linked, it's a standard treatment of the missing heritability problem in GWAS studies, now largely obsolete given that everything is exome or whole-genome sequencing these days. Best guesses concerning missing heritability now concentrate on regulatory effects, including microRNAs and epigenetics. Figures that they'd link a largely irrelevant paper based on old research.) Queexchthonic murmurings 16:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave other BoNs an avenue for stuff in other articles, if possible. Queexchthonic murmurings 09:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

But blocking BoNs from all of RW is hardly a good alternative to protecting your talk page. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocking a single BoN is a much better alternative. But thank you for volunteering to do all of the future cleanup when they come back. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

So, because you feed the troll on your talk page that troll should be blocked? You do realise that mikemikev is a special case and that it's his level of venomous trolling, not just being a troll, that got him blocked, right? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Which relates to your determination to let him off lightly for evading the ban how? Queexchthonic murmurings 09:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the question is whether he was "banworthy" in the first place - trolling in and of itself is not a blockable offence on RW, and certainly not one meriting a block of several days. If the problem is a sort of "Wiki-Gish Gallop" (loads of edits), then the vandal bin is the usual option, but unless the trolling is of the really nasty type (e.g. mikemikev), then blocks are usually not the preferred way of dealing with them - and certainly not warranted simply because a troll writes silly stuff on your talk page. Being stupid is usually not something you get blocked for at RW. If you blocked this IP, because you thought it was yet another of mikemikev's Whac-A-Mole IP socks, then just write something to that effect in the reasons box and dish out a 3-month or 1-year block or whatever. But again, mikemikev is a special case. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It's rather likely this BoN is mikemikev. Hence why 3 day rather than 3 year. I doubt he revisits old IPs, hence a 3-day ban does just as much good as a 3-month ban. I thought it was damn obvious what was going on; perhaps you should avoid changing bans if you haven't read what led up to them. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

And perhaps you should actually try presenting the good case for blocking people rather than using joke block reasons for serious blocks and then getting pissy about it when challenged. If you think it's mikemikev, then write that that's why you block, instead of waiting to have it dragged out of you. And yes, I did read what led up to it and as I've already pointed out, none of the BoN's posts have been up (down?) to mikemikev's usual (sub)standard. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm 100% sure I'm not the one getting unreasonably worked up about this. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Thought that might have been the case. The comic was edited out while I was rolling up the first ban, so I was kind of glad to nip it in the bud before it caused more janitorial work. Noticed a new user 'centerforpsychology' that bears monitoring, as that hits another CoS hot button. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You'd think that even a moderate block like 1 or 2 months would be enough to drive away a GG apologist. We've learned that it isn't. I would actually not be surprised if they were still wanting to beat that drum 10 years down the line. GG has become the poster child for a chronic lack of a sense of proportion. As for IP - I couldn't actually tell if the original block or your block included it, thanks to the display. Also, there's no point blocking an account if all they need to do is log out. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the autoblock for IPs may only ever be for one day - if you look at Special:BlockList, the IP block is an autoblock from DG's original block, and only lasts one day rather than the infinite that was on the account. So it seems that you don't have to worry about collateral blocks for IPs when swinging the banhammer at accounts. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"I found some highly questionable content [on The Bible Reloaded twitter], barely even looking." Do you mind sharing, or at least telling me how you found it? I've tried Googling with the keywords "anti-feminism" & "gamergate," & I've also scrolled through their recent tweets & replies a few times, & didn't find anything. Thanks.67.234.54.93 (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't save a link, but I scrolled back a while and found stuff that wouldn't pass muster as a cite, but was definitely suggestive. Overt support for TJ for example, who it's pretty clear has now left the rails of rationalism. An off-colour comment about a woman, overtly sexual and demeaning, which is kind of par for the course for a certain kind of asshat. At the very least, it suggests a lack of a grasp of the problems surrounding neo-misongyny and tacit participation in its culture, even if only accidentally. Queexchthonic murmurings 09:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I did see this statement that "either Steve Shives or TJ" gets the most undeserved flack, even though "some of it is earned." But that's pretty vague. I'm aware that's not their only involvement with him, but I'll get to that in a second. I don't think I found the other thing. I did find an argument that I'm a little unsure of, but in context, they seem to be saying that they're supporting this 1 statement from this guy, not everything he says. Which leads back to the point about TJ: If their associations prove their beliefs, & they associate with both him & Shives, does that make them anti-feminist or pro-feminist?

Overall, I just don't think there's enough support for the vlogroll's statement. None of this has anything to do with Gamergate & there's not a whole lot of evidence of anti-feminism either (though, to be fair, not a ton of evidence for pro-feminism either). The most that could be said is that their association with some people is controversial, but even then I think it should be put into context, the actual controversy is not "anti-feminism, pro-Gamergate," it's whether or not associating with people like TJ & Repzion constitutes an endorsement. And I guess you could keep the point that their comments can be read as mean, but I don't think that's very compelling, the same could be said of this Wiki itself.67.234.54.93 (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, if I'd found something concrete, I'd have thrown it in as a cite. There's definitely a case to answer, though, and the sexual comment definitely sets alarm bells ringing, so removing those sections is probably premature. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In what way? I wouldn't be opposed to mentioning something, but "pro-Gamergate & anti-feminist" is, at best, exaggerating. And to be fair, I've tried a few times to see if either myself or someone else could find something more substantial.75.102.126.26 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The 'it was just a joke, really' sexual comment is still a red flag. A direct search for 'Bible Reloaded GamerGate' only turned up a couple of his tweets, asking what GG is, but no exhortation or condemnation. The latter could easily be a desire not to paint a target on themselves rather than tacit support, of course. They've dumped a partnership with a T-shirt company over a racist 'joke', apparently, so that's a good sign. More digging reveals rather more progressive stuff than reactionary, on twitter and FB, so if there was a flirtation with assholery, it appears to have ended. So, yeah, time for that sentence to go. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I think they just like to be crude. I just wish I knew how you were finding these things. Apparently, my Google-Fu is weaker than I thought.130.203.191.129 (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Not so much google-fu as a slow day at work and lots of scrolling. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You've got the chance for another shot at becoming a mod (a modshot?) in the upcoming by-election.ScepticWombat (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh hey, thanks, this is something we probably need. Were you inspired by my footnote in Thunderf00t? I'm a programmer myself, so I harbor a particular loathing for the vocal shitheads in computer fields. --Ymir (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Not at first; someone asked what STEMlord was on the talk page, and my reply is the backbone of the article in progress. I realised a few days later that STEM and STEMlord probably needed an article, and started chopping one together. The footnote was very handy, and I saw no point in changing the language. In bioinformatics, I managed to hit S, T and M, and I also find it baffling and aggravating how many people stray off-beam when they forget that fields of expertise are things that exist. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hah, I actually didn't look at the talk page. But I've seen the term elsewhere. --Ymir (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Gators Claimed to Name You in IRC - They Want Milo at Breitbart to do an Article Naming People Here[edit]

Hi. I am doing a longer post on this at the coop and obviously, to protect myself using a burner account, but basically as I am in the process of typing up to explain elsewhere, I was lurking in a channel and a bunch of GamerGators are trying to persuade people to 'expose' you. Specifically, they are all emailing Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) of Breitbart.

They say they have your real world identity as a statistician working for an academic institution. They say you are part of an extremist hate group (they mean RW) and unsuitable to work in an academic environment or reputable company.

I dont know if they have your details right, but I feel I should warn you. I am writing a longer post on the coop now, should be up soon. Worried (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The coop probably isn't the place, and neither is this page. Email would be best. Bicyclewheel 22:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Enable email, I can show you how you were backtraced. Hipocrite (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Psh, this handle has been linked to my identity on the first page of google before now. Competence is not their strong point. Queexchthonic murmurings 00:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That is all very well and your courage is commendable. The problem is that your participation on this wiki could give Milo grounds to take your job.

I know you are a smart guy and all but aspects of this wiki could violate the law in your location, and no matter how much you think you know the law, Breitbart have qualified and highly skilled lawyers. It is obvious at least some gators are monitoring you so exercise caution buddy. Worried (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Milo stands more chance of taking his own job than mine. At least you're no longer pretending to be doing anything other than making threats. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Queex, you may already know this, but some message board with lots of GGers is talking about this site, and an editor here just joined it, asking what anyone knows about your identity and about releasing it. I really think we have grounds to just not let new GGers in right now. They're on a warpath for doxing and even mention going after Gerard's wife!---Mona- (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I'm done with her again. I just think it's unconscionable that we're letting her run people off the site for disagreeing with her about an issue where she's an outspoken activist. Hipocrite (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not about her. It's about you flatly denying you said something four lines below where you said it. And what you said was fucking stupid. Get a grip. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, she said regarding me: "This one told me right after I joined that most people here love Israel and none of my edits would stand unless I too "think Israel is great."" I never said that. Never. Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You said: "Go pal around with some fucking terrorists, you nutjob freak."

She said: "I get called all kinds of things by these types, including a "nutjob" who should "pal around with some fucking terrorists.""

That was not what I refered to when I said "I did not say that." I was refering to "This one told me right after I joined that most people here love Israel and none of my edits would stand unless I too "think Israel is great."" I never said that. Hipocrite (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You did an awful job of expressing that. It's more usual when you don't specify which part of a paragraph to be referring to the last part. If you went off half-cocked because you were apoplectic with rage, you can't pin that on anyone else. Quite apart from how your every comment in that thread was seriously messed up. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Not blaming it on anyone. I took my lump and apologized. Best wishes. Hipocrite (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Hipocrite, in the first dys after my arrival last August, you wrote to me:

Well, firstly, go fuck yourself. Secondly, my problem is with your rampant cherrypicking. There isn't going to be a house pov on Israel - seriously, not going to happen, so you're either going to be able to write something that satisfies people who think Israel is great, or you're going to get reverted a lot. Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

And actually, we no longer have to "satisfy" those who think Israel is great. That's because I have been tenacious in presenting well-documented evidence of the facts which persuaded enough people that material/text now stands stand which does not make Israel look great.---Mona- (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

More like "edit warred everyone into exhaustion, fought on every little detail, even defending confirmed deranged loons like Cynthia McKinney, used sources such as electronic intifada, and then whined to the community about 'persecution' when you don't get your way, chased off a number of editors and then claim consensus when there's so few left that oppose you". Face it Mona, you are part of the problem more than the solution. CorruptUser (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. I documented the facts about McKinney, to your enormous dissatisfaction. Electronic Intifada is news outlet with a strong reputation for factual accuracy. I do use it sometimes, and that will continue. If that drives people away, well, they have issues. And I hardly think Avenger and Arisboch were "chased off." No, they became so extreme in their misbehavior, the community booted them. (Tho they remain as many BoNs and new accounts, along with their KWF pals.) As we have seen, even before those two got themselves booted, once I pressed the facts on I-P, there was a majority here (more or less) for my POV. I'm certainly not going to apologize for that!---Mona- (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Registered 2 minutes after a vandal's sock, played innocent for one edit after banning, then when they didn't get the response they anticipated fell to BoN vandalism. There is a small chance it was a coincidence, but very, very small. Queexchthonic murmurings 22:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. I even got rid of the bit they apparently had a problem with, only for them to invent a different problem. Plus the fact that they are still reverting to a semantically incorrect version. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

IIRC this guy was topic banned on Wikipedia for his edit warring over the Gamergate controversy article. I expect him to behave the same way in here. Typhoon (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I looked at Wikipedia and The Devil's Advocate was first topic banned and after he tried to ignore his topic ban and continued to get into fights, he got banned indefinite:

In remedy 8.5 of the GamerGate case, The Devil's Advocate was 'strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee.' Accordingly, for continuing harassment of other editors, The Devil's Advocate is banned indefinitely from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after this motion passes, and every six months thereafter.

And almost a month after his banishment from Wikipedia he creates an account in here, continuing his obsessive edit warring over Gamergate. Does this remind you of someone? Typhoon (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I created an account here after seeing my ban being misrepresented as having something to do with GamerGate when I have no reason to believe it related in any sense other than it being effectuated through a general remedy passed against me in the GamerGate case. As far as me "ignoring" the topic ban on Wikipedia, the more accurate assessment is that certain users wanted to make false or unsourced attacks against Eron Gjoni and I invoked the BLP exemption to my ban in order to remove those attacks, but while acknowledging they were indeed BLP violations admins whose conduct during GamerGate I had criticized decided the violations weren't serious enough to warrant invoking the exemption and blocked me with accusations that I was acting in bad faith by trying to remove said false or unsourced attacks. A couple months later, after I submitted to ArbCom a report about an admin who was violating the conflict of interest policies, the Committee declared that I was harassing editors and banned me indefinitely without ever telling me who they claimed I was harassing or even that they were talking about banning me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling said it was a long history of combative behavior. Judging from your editing here, I can see where they are coming from. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you should make your email public. You tried appropriate channels, the system failed you, now you release. Like a Wikipedian Snowden. – Sarah (HH) 02:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You replied to the wrong person. --Castaigne2 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Still trying to work some of the appropriate channels. Even then, I am not inclined to tell all as I told the person I wouldn't say who I reported.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

An editor with principles! They have you at a disadvantage. Stay true to your word and risk victimizing future editors or break it and (possibly) protect them. Sticky. However you handle this, our children's children will sing the praises of the hero who banished the dragon from Wikipedia. – Sarah (HH) 06:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, golly, you have been pretty combative as have a few others here and I tend to find people are rather combative on controversial topics. I believe you should be ready to argue with people if you are going to criticize something they did and usually people are ready, so if that's enough to ban someone then Wikipedia shouldn't have any editors left at this point. Does seem like there are other criteria in play when it comes to deciding who gets to stay on the island.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

[1] 'About 5860 results'. The complete first page are articles demonstrating the MRA obsession with false rape allegations. This is a 'sky is blue' sort of fact. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh sure, MRAs will always point out that there are a lot of false rape allegations. But we're talking about provably false allegations. Those are pretty rare, and MRAs acknowledge that ("It is harder to prove a rape accusation is false than other false accusations, therefore there is less disincentive to falsely accuse"). A more typical situation is a he-said-she-said scenario where the judge has to rule based on which side's story is more plausible. The guy says the sex was consensual (or never happened); the girl swears she was raped. Since there's no video footage and no evidence of physical trauma, the magistrate/judge/jury (whether in civil/family court or in a college disciplinary setting) has to consider factors like the parties' demeanor. Does the woman seem scared? Does the guy seem angry (which suggests he might be an emotionally explosive abuser)? There's not really much else to go on, since whatever happened occurred in private. Men's Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

There are not a lot of false rape allegations. The best estimates from science put the rate at 6%, which is the same rate as false reports of any crime. There is nothing special about rape that appears to make false allegations more common. That's the error that MRAs, and yourself, make: they are not common. The rampant paranoia that MRA and MRA-adjacent commentators have about false rape accusations is telling, though: it says that they habitually cut very close to rape with what they consider 'sex'. Queexchthonic murmurings 18:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of them are spambots who never use the account again; not really worth your time! But thanks! =) 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, but they make multiple attempts to add their spam, so the extra hurdle of registering a new account might, just might, slow down their attempts to cirumcvent the filter. Ideally, I'd just nuke the account completely, but I'm not sure mediawiki even supports that. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)